Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Hello all

Paul now has his mic connected.

Hi All!

Hi Paul!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#

Sorry to join late, was speaking on a webinar that just concluded a bit late

hand up

The victorious respondent might want identity on the record.

PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=872694278

I take a different view I think it should hinge on who wins the proceeding

stepping away for a moment

The respondent should have the choice if successful so he is returned to the position prior to the proceedings

There is still generally validity to publishing the parties’ information regardless of who wins or loses

So I don’t think a party should be able to redact their info in the decision simply bc they win or lose

no reccomemended is not strong enough

just saye the position

Standard position?

Marie +1

“Where a Complainant has been updated with registration data provided to the Complainant by the URS Provider, in general, such information should be published in the subsequent URS decision, except where a URS panel holds that such data should be redacted/withheld from the published decision”

may required

back

says may required

@Phil that’s my point - who wins or loses the cases should not be determinative or even a factor in terms of whether or not to publish the info

It should hinge on entirely other factors,

Possible identity theft, use of the info of a minor, maybe a political dissident or something like that

leaving it to the discretion of the panel in all cases avoids potential concerns about having a defaulting respondent who doesn’t come forward to give a reason for redaction

Looking at the donut for this one, there were 26 separate public responses falling into 9 separate categories - so no coalescence around a broadly supported recomendation

Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.

Yes, succinctly stated Paul

Panel's discretion and a right for either party to MAKE A REASONED REQUEST TO the Panel to one thing or the other?

That is essentially how it works now - a party can always request redaction, no?

I suppose in theory, but not sure it’s explicitly stated that they can in the URS rules

This is the text from the UDRP. Maybe its not in the URS. j. Notification and Publication. The Provider shall notify us of any decision made by an Administrative Panel with respect to a domain name you have registered with us. All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.

Can we simply agree to recommend that panelist has discretion to withhold publication if respondent makes a request and it is determined to constitute good cause?

+1 @Phil

Perhaps the Panel should have discretion to do so sub sponte as well, but otherwise agree with Phil

Given that most URS cases are default, it will be a very small % where a respondent would even be a participant who might wish to make such a request

*sua sponte

The only thing that gets published btw would be the name as it appears in registrar’s whois record

wsould support Phil but would prefre a successful respondent have the final say because thet returns them to position they wre in before the complaint

i don’t think any other identifying/contact info is included

I made a minimalist proposal because I don't see anything beyond that getting broad much less consensus support

sure

To be clear, it is my suggestion, not a recommendation I feel strongly about. I accept whatever the WG can agree upon.

not all registries have that information

it might be with the Registrar

From Paul M: Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.

Paul M: Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.

A successful respondent can request redaction but I think ultimately it requires the panel to decide if it is appropriate or not; I don’t think a prevailing respondent should have a right to redaction simply as a matter of having prevailed

I agree the paneleist should have discretion but it would be good if we could also give a successful respondent the option to prevent publishing so they could be returned to the position they wre in before the claim was brought

A Griffin - correct. No right to redaction or not. Just a right to ask for it.

Agree @Griffin, @Paul. Discretion given to panelist means to me that panelist has the final say.

Agree with the basic formulation as captured by Paul M

What’s the harm in giving that discretion to the successful respondent?

agree with Paul and Griffin

It is important as a matter of public record and transparency to know the parties, whether or not they prevailed or lost

I don't think non publication of the registrant info takes them "back to the position they were in". The longstanding default has been that the respondent's info is published, even post GDPR.

Support panellist discretion

Correct Susan

Agree with Griffin. For sake of transparency publication should occur regardless of determination unless good cause is presented to panelist. (personal view of course)

yes

support the Paul M suggestion

yes

yes we have captured

We will need to circulate staff's recommendation language for final approval

We will clean up the note

after the call

Paul M: Panel's discretion and a right for either party to ask the Panel to one thing or the other.

This proposal had 75% support and 2% opposition. It should be accepted as is IMHO.

Do we have to learn to speak "Paul M" ?

correct paul - we absolutely agreed in sub B that the looseness of the recommendation language needed correcting

But the Recommendation is inaccurate.

as written

The contextual language of this recommendation specifically references 4.2: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Recommendation+%233

Surely we don't have to go back to public comment to fix an error

So the intent of the recommendation is reference 4.2, but the language itself is a paraphrase

As Ariel notes, the intent of the recommendation was to reflect the actual language of 4.2 “predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory”

Susan--to be clear, I was not stating or implying you had recommended going back to current rule. I thought I heard Kathy suggest that.

Section 4.2 of URS Procedure:

The Notice of Complaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider intothe predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory.

Point taken

+1 Susan, I'm too am not sure how we got this point. I recall your point about wanting providers to comply with URS procedure paras 4.2 and 4.3.

So what is the modified version we are considering?

Sub Group B made the relevant recommendation

The Working Group recommends that URS Providers must comply with URS Procedure para 4.2 and para 4.3 and transmit the Notice of Complaint to the Respondent, with translation in the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory, via email, fax, and postal mail.

@Phil: See the text above

in the chat Phil

And staff will circulate it in the updated public comment analysis docment

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200818/6585de4b/Wave1Rec27-PossiblenextstepsforURS-RPMPDP-0001.pdf

John is Council liaison do can add bits if needed.

*so

The Wave1 Rec 27 was simply to update terminology to match the new SSAD model

hand up

3, 4 are addressed by URS Rec 1

Interesting question: If our Report is adopted last by the Board, doesn't our language choice govern over the EPDP? I'm not saying we do that, but it is an interesting hypothetical.

not necessary, if two policies contradict each other - it is and issue

I'm not suggesting we do it. It was just an mischievous,, stray thought. :)

bye all , I have to drop

It is on the analysis doc as a side comment for Q1

We should be making relevant aspects of URS consistent with EPDP1. I do not see how our Charter lets us reconsider and change its recommendations.

Also see p.139 of EPDP Phase 1 Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf

For Purpose 6-PA5

@Phil: They aren’t asking for changes to its recommendations, just to develop Implementation Guidance/Recs to address those recommendations

We should be careful to clarify, not create conflict or contradict